Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett From: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: Domains vs. Routing (was Re: rewriting FROM: lines) Message-ID: <714@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 9 Jun 89 16:56:41 GMT References: <31051@sri-unix.SRI.COM> <160@zebra.UUCP> <6982@cbnews.ATT.COM> <882@adobe.UUCP> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce G. Barnett) Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 20 In-reply-to: greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) In article <882@adobe.UUCP>, greid@adobe (Glenn Reid) writes: >The bangity!bangity!user stuff is pretty crude, but it was very >reliable in terms of reversing the path and getting mail returned to >the sender. That's valuable, in my opinion. And sorely missed in >today's world. You forget about gateways. How would you send mail to someone on some private network that had to be routed thru an internet gateway? And do you REALLY expect the return address to work? I have had to put in several special rules to take mangled DECnet, internet, local, and UUCP addresses into some reasonable internal form so that pure UUCP sites can, I hope, use some of the return paths. I hope I got all of the cases right, but I still find the most goddawful mangled addresses, say bitnet to UUCP to internet to GE DECNET. I recall one so bad that I had no idea what host the message came from. -- Bruce G. Barnett a.k.a. uunet!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett barnett@crdgw1.UUCP